(Original post by Salt Queen)
Oh right, but I do know they knock down Irish travellers houses and slur them off but I'm sure for ethnic reasons east-European gypsies are treated badly but assuming op is discussing reverse racism...he's on about the white gypsies.

My best friend a Roma gypsy her house is always spotless clean she got a degree in nursing.She never smoke taken drugs or drink alcohol. She was virgin to she got married.

i don't understand why some people dislike Roma gypsies British ones I mean they have strong family values and morals.

(Original post by JamesN88)
The issue is that they leave where they've been parked an absolute shithole that the council(and ultimately the local residents via taxation) have to pay to clean up. If they left places clean and tidy I doubt many people would care.

That is mainly Irish Travels not Roma Gypsies most British Roma live on caravan sites which they own or council run. Some live in house and even go university and have professional jobs.

Discrimination against gypsies is more socially accepted than against other ethnicities. So I accept the premise of the OP.

But there is racism among travellers towards those who are settled. They have an insulting name for the rest of us, gadjos. So the racism and discrimination feeds on itself.

I was talking to a paramedic the other day and she told me they have to get police protection in traveller camps when they attend emergencies like cardiac arrests. If they die they are often attacked, accused of killing the person.

That is how wide the divide between gypsies and non gypsies can be, culturally. Gadjos who are doing their job, trying to save lives are so mistrusted that if someone dies they are believed to have deliberately killed them. Extraordinary. It is a sub culture that consciously sets itself apart, and that feeds back into the dominant culture, feeding racism and prejudice.

(Original post by astutehirstute)
Discrimination against gypsies is more socially accepted than against other ethnicities. So I accept the premise of the OP.

But there is racism among travellers towards those who are settled. They have an insulting name for the rest of us, gadjos. So the racism and discrimination feeds on itself.

I was talking to a paramedic the other day and she told me they have to get police protection in traveller camps when they attend emergencies like cardiac arrests. If they die they are often attacked, accused of killing the person.

That is how wide the divide between gypsies and non gypsies can be, culturally. Gadjos who are doing their job, trying to save lives are so mistrusted that if someone dies they are believed to have deliberately killed them. Extraordinary. It is a sub culture that consciously sets itself apart, and that feeds back into the dominant culture, feeding racism and prejudice.

The people i think your talking about are Irish Travelers not British Roma they are both different groups of people. They don't speak the same language or come from same origin.

(Original post by astutehirstute)
Discrimination against gypsies is more socially accepted than against other ethnicities. So I accept the premise of the OP.

But there is racism among travellers towards those who are settled. They have an insulting name for the rest of us, gadjos. So the racism and discrimination feeds on itself.

I was talking to a paramedic the other day and she told me they have to get police protection in traveller camps when they attend emergencies like cardiac arrests. If they die they are often attacked, accused of killing the person.

That is how wide the divide between gypsies and non gypsies can be, culturally. Gadjos who are doing their job, trying to save lives are so mistrusted that if someone dies they are believed to have deliberately killed them. Extraordinary. It is a sub culture that consciously sets itself apart, and that feeds back into the dominant culture, feeding racism and prejudice.

Would you enjoy being bulled at school and your education spoiled being because a gypsy. Here a film of a young Roma gentleman who got into Oxford University talking about his community.

I believe there is serious anti-gypsy racism in this country. I remember when I first moved to this country I was shocked by billboard ads in the tube for My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding which had the tagline, "Bigger, Fatter, Gypsier" and a picture of a handicapped child.

It was something that wouldn't be out of place in the Third Reich and I found it deeply racist and ugly.

Having said that, do you not think it is a valid comment to point out that the reputation of the Traveller/Roma/gypsy community is negatively affected by the behaviour of people within the community? I think the issue is not gypsy ethnicity, obviously. But the Traveller lifestyle is highly regressive. Criminality is rife. Education is spurned. Many of these communities have nothing but contempt for planning laws and the legal-democratic order that underpins said laws.

We should not be afraid to speak out against regressive cultural practices.

(Original post by looloo2134)
That is mainly Irish Travels not Roma Gypsies most British Roma live on caravan sites which they own or council run. Some live in house and even go university and have professional jobs.

Don't get me wrong I know they're not all bad. But when every single encounter you've had with them has been negative it's hard to keep an open mind.

(Original post by JamesN88)
They've pitched up in my local area and left the place looking like a bombsite on multiple occasions. Last time they took over a car park used by sheltered housing and a disabled kid's centre.

Indeed, it seems like there have been ongoing issues with the Traveller community showing a complete disregard for public property, private property, planning laws... there seems to be an inherently anti-social element in that lifestyle.

It's important to distinguish Roma/Gypsy ethnicity from anti-social lifestyles adopted by some members of the community. The former should be protected from racism and bigotry. But people who adopt a criminal or antisocial lifestyle are not being discriminated against by speaking out against them or failing to accomodate their lawbreaking

(Original post by JamesN88)
They've pitched up in my local area and left the place looking like a bombsite on multiple occasions. Last time they took over a car park used by sheltered housing and a disabled kid's centre.

Quite interestingly, gypsies started arriving in England in the 1400s! In the time of Henry VIII, parliament passed the Egyptians Act of 1530 (they thought they were "Egyptians" which eventually became corrupted to "Gypsies"). The act said, in part;

an outlandish people, calling themselves Egyptians, using no craft nor feat of merchandise, who have come into this realm, and gone from shire to shire, and place to place, in great company; and used great subtlety and crafty means to deceive the people--bearing them in hand that they, by palmistry, could tell men's and women's fortunes; and so, many times, by craft and subtlety, have deceived the people for their money; and also have committed many heinous felonies and robberies, to the great hurt and deceit of the people that they have come among....

... the Egyptians now being in this realm, have monition to depart within sixteen days.... from henceforth no such person be suffered to come within this the King's realm and if they do, then they and every of them so doing, shall forfeit to the King our Sovereign Lord all their goods and titles and then to be commanded to avoid the realm within fifteen days under pain of imprisonment.

(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Having said that, do you not think it is a valid comment to point out that the reputation of the Traveller/Roma/gypsy community is negatively affected by the behaviour of people within the community? I think the issue is not gypsy ethnicity, obviously. But the Traveller lifestyle is highly regressive. Criminality is rife. Education is spurned. Many of these communities have nothing but contempt for planning laws and the legal-democratic order that underpins said laws.

We should not be afraid to speak out against regressive cultural practices.

I think this has a lot of overlapping issues. It should first be noted that crime generally tends to be more common in impoverished communities. With regard to Roma and gypsy community attitudes to the state and law in general, I think there's a bit of a vicious circle. Much of the persecution of Roma over the past couple of centuries has been, in part, due to them not really fitting with the modern European state. Like the pre-WW2 Jews, they are scattered across Europe, forming an ethnic minority everywhere and having no obvious area of concentration, and so have ended up being treated as "foreign" everywhere.* This is (as with most Roma issues) admittedly less of a problem here than in Eastern Europe, where ethnicity is much more tied up with politics (for instance, in Bosnia, it's still basically impossible for Roma or Jews to run for elected office). Furthermore, a lot of Roma interaction with the state (apart from the outrightly negative experiences, of course) often seems to be gauged, not necessarily intentionally, to their complete cultural assimilation, and so they reject it.

Lack of education is, I agree, a negative consequence of this, and I think there needs to be two-way work on this, both in terms of building up more trust in education among Romani and gypsy communities by their own activists, but also in trying to build an approach to education that can work better with an itinerant lifestyle. While it is, of course, perfectly possible to be a settled Roma, I think demanding that those who do keep to the quasi-nomadic lifestyle give that up completely is unreasonable, just as it would be for the Sami or the Bedouin.

To finish on a positive note, though, I would say that, in general, there is more political will in the UK for more Roma-friendly policies than elsewhere in Europe (especially places like Hungary), particularly among (most) Labour MPs. From my own personal experience, recognition of the Porajmos has certainly been significantly improving.

* Similarly everywhere Roma and other Travellers stay, the wishes of "local residents" will be brought up - something that, to Roma, sounds a bit like saying that they're not "local" anywhere and so their wishes don't matter.

Can only give anecdotes but they cause chaos in my local area.
They are currently in the middle of the local football pitch. That the kids use. And they see nothing wrong with effectively stealing that piece of land.
They have moved there when evicted from 100 yards up the road. There they stripped open the street lights to take the electricity. And left as much rubbish littered as is at the local tip. Along with numerous children’s bikes that had been stolen from nearby houses.
The local pub was trashed when they were asked to leave at closing time cos they weren’t ready to go.
The furniture and windows smashed.
I personally witnessed them stealing petrol from the local station. When the attendant ran out, they aimed their van at him. He jumped away, narrowly being hit at speed. Not to mention the two cars they hit on the way out.
They even have a complete disregard for the cemetery. It’s a lawn cemetery. That means headstone only. Not the great big fenced off graves.
Cars aren’t allowed but it doesn’t stop them driving their vans through it. Damaging other graves.
The council have so many complaints but are loath to act for retaliation. Yet the settled community are fined and have notices served to amend graves if they don’t meet requirements
They will cause havoc for two to three months then move on. Returning again a couple of months later

Maybe it’s a coincidence that the theft rate triples when they are here
No one can be surprised that our community dreads their appearance. It’s not racism at all.
If they camped legally, didn’t trash the place, paid their way and behaved appropriately then they’d be as welcome as anyone else
But they don’t.

(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Indeed, it seems like there have been ongoing issues with the Traveller community showing a complete disregard for public property, private property, planning laws... there seems to be an inherently anti-social element in that lifestyle.

Part of the reason for the disdain for planning laws is that only ~10% of planning applications by gypsies and Travellers are accepted, compared to a typical acceptance rate of ~80%. Most of these rejected applications are for land that the gypsy communities already own (also, considering how everyone's on about "crime", it should be noted that even trespassing is not actually a criminal offence, merely a civil one).

The bulk of gypsies that live perfectly legally on official sites go unnoticed, and so don't counter the prejudice.

(Original post by anarchism101)
Part of the reason for the disdain for planning laws is that only ~10% of planning applications by gypsies and Travellers are accepted, compared to a typical acceptance rate of ~80%.

By itself that figure doesn't tell us very much. Are we comparing apples with apples? What if a much greater proportion of Traveller planning applications are unreasonable or disruptive to the community?

also, considering how everyone's on about "crime", it should be noted that even trespassing is not actually a criminal offence, merely a civil one

That was certainly the traditional common-law approach, but since 1994 various forms of aggravated trespass, "trespassory assembly" and adverse occupation of residential premises. I'm no expert on housing law and property torts but I understand that the law in relation to squatters has been tightened up even further in the last five years.

I think this has a lot of overlapping issues. It should first be noted that crime generally tends to be more common in impoverished communities. With regard to Roma and gypsy community attitudes to the state and law in general, I think there's a bit of a vicious circle. Much of the persecution of Roma over the past couple of centuries has been, in part, due to them not really fitting with the modern European state.

Indeed, and perhaps it's understandable that groups who, within living memory, have been the subject of genocidal attacks would be suspicious of the state and its intentions. I suppose it's similar perhaps to some ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities and their suspicion of outsiders and fear of assimilation. But in the latter case, I have little sympathy for them and I feel the same way about the Traveller lifestyle; where that regressive, paranoid lifestyle translates into harm to their children (in educational opportunities, in instilling backwards beliefs and practices in them).

Furthermore, a lot of Roma interaction with the state (apart from the outrightly negative experiences, of course) often seems to be gauged, not necessarily intentionally, to their complete cultural assimilation, and so they reject it.

I suppose this might come to the crux of the issue. Is there a relentless pressure toward assimilation? I have no doubt. But it's not like we want to destroy Traveller dress, cuisine, language. I think what people do find objectionable is people living a tribal, nomadic lifestyle and doing so in a manner that places additional burdens on the rest of society.

While it is, of course, perfectly possible to be a settled Roma, I think demanding that those who do keep to the quasi-nomadic lifestyle give that up completely is unreasonable, just as it would be for the Sami or the Bedouin.

Let's say some Bedouins came to the UK now, in 2017, and started living a tribal, nomadic lifestyle, setting up their tents on village commons and riding their camels through the streets (actually, the latter would be pretty awesome), and also engaging in various regressive Bedouin practices (blood feuds, FGM, smuggling etc) and preventing their children from engaging properly with the education system. Would it be incumbent on us to accomodate this lifestyle?

(Original post by anarchism101)
So the other day, in the midst of a debate about discrimination against one particular group, a Labour MP gets up and says: “Does my honourable friend accept that the public view of the community will continue to be shaped by the appalling behaviour of the minority, who bring absolute chaos to their own communities?”

I'm sure we know that if he'd said it about Jews or Black people, he'd (quite rightly) be out before he even finished speaking. If the debate had been about Muslims, or Asians, or to a lesser extent Poles or Romanians, maybe a couple of Express or Mail columnists, or some obscure minor UKIP MEP, might have stood up for him and made the typical moans about "political correctness", but without a doubt it would still (again, quite rightly) be denounced by all the major parties and thrown out. Gay or Trans people? Would immediately (for good reason) be taken as proof by LGBT groups that British society still has a serious homophobia/transphobia problem.

I am not anti-gypsies myself, but maybe the difference in treatment is because being a gypsy is something you can easily change, whereas your race/gender/sexuality is not? The main complaints I've heard about gypsies is that they ruin common land by parking their caravans on it and then leaving lots of litter behind (which anecdotally seems to be true but I'm sure there are also environmentally conscious gypsies out there) and that they steal, mostly scrap metal - while this is certainly bad, it's obviously much worse to say they don't deserve human rights. However I do have concerns about gypsies and their communities, namely that their children can't access a proper education and I assume they also have difficulties accessing health care (can't register at a dentist with no address!). I wouldn't avoid making friends with gypsies or keep my children away from them and I condemn discrimination against them but equally it is somewhat to be expected that such a lack of integration into the leitkultur might cause a certain degree of friction

(Original post by AlexanderHam)
By itself that figure doesn't tell us very much. Are we comparing apples with apples? What if a much greater proportion of Traveller planning applications are unreasonable or disruptive to the community?

Well, I can't provide stats on the subjective idea of what's a "reasonable" application, but the question of it being "disruptive to the community" is part of the problem I'm getting at here. If the wishes/needs of the settled population trump the wishes/needs of Travellers everywhere, it's essentially saying that Travellers belong nowhere and have rights nowhere.

Indeed, and perhaps it's understandable that groups who, within living memory, have been the subject of genocidal attacks would be suspicious of the state and its intentions. I suppose it's similar perhaps to some ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities and their suspicion of outsiders and fear of assimilation. But in the latter case, I have little sympathy for them and I feel the same way about the Traveller lifestyle; where that regressive, paranoid lifestyle translates into harm to their children (in educational opportunities, in instilling backwards beliefs and practices in them).

I agree that a paranoid attitude to outsiders is a problem in any group, but I still think it needs to be a two-way street and the state needs to win some trust among Romani and gypsy communities. Personally, I'm of the opinion that a few basic symbolic moves would go a long way:

- I'd restructure the census form slightly, since at the moment the only relevant ethnicity option is "White - Gypsy/Traveller", which is a bit awkward because i) No "Romani", ii) Some Roma and Gypsies would dispute that they are white, and iii) it implies being an ethnic Roma/Gypsy and having a Traveller lifestyle are the same thing, and that if you're settled you can't be an ethnic Gypsy.
- I'd like to see Angloromani recognised as a minority language. I don't expect this would have any more significance at a practical level than the current recognition of Cornish or Ulster Scots does, but symbols mean stuff.

Also, more Porajmos commemoration would be a bonus, though I think this is getting better already.

Let's say some Bedouins came to the UK now, in 2017, and started living a tribal, nomadic lifestyle, setting up their tents on village commons and riding their camels through the streets (actually, the latter would be pretty awesome), and also engaging in various regressive Bedouin practices (blood feuds, FGM, smuggling etc) and preventing their children from engaging properly with the education system. Would it be incumbent on us to accomodate this lifestyle?

I think this is a different situation, because such Bedouins would be arriving as modern immigrants, rather than having had communities here for centuries as the Roma have. But setting that aside for the moment, I think it would be possible to take on things like blood feuds and FGM among Bedouin without necessarily destroying their nomadic lifestyle of camels and tents.

(Original post by Etoile)
I am not anti-gypsies myself, but maybe the difference in treatment is because being a gypsy is something you can easily change, whereas your race/gender/sexuality is not?

I think you may be mixing up Roma/gypsy ethnicity with the nomadic Traveller lifestyle. The Romani are a distinct ethnic group descended from people who migrated to Europe from Northwest India and Pakistan around 1000 years ago. Part of what confuses the issue in the British Isles is that there are also non-Roma Traveller groups, most notably the Lucht Siúil/Irish Travellers.